« on: November 02, 2013, 02:01:36 PM »
I know canon have tried to design a system that doesn't alienate existing EF users, ...
I think canon may have been better ripping it up and starting from scratch, it does seem a bit mental that the 70D got the tech the M should have had.
I don't know what bit I got wrong though, might you elucidate?
I totally agree with you, that the 70D should have been served up as a mirrorless cam.
Wrong? Your statement "I know Canon have tried to design a system that does not alienate EF users" ... is plain wrong. Canon does not care whom they alienate or not. Truth is: Canon was and still IS simply NOT ABLE to deliver a better MILC than the sub-par EOS-M.
* Canon has no clue.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring an APS-C sensor matching the Nikon D7100 - 2 years later!
* Canon is NOT ABLE to bring a FF sensor matching the D800. 2 years later.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce a mirrorless FF system camera like the Sony A7/R.
* Canon is NOT ABLE to produce PD_AF that performs as good as an Oly OMD1 or a Panasonix GX7.
All Canon is able to do ... is to charge outrageous prices for their last century DSLR technology and "video-optimize" it. Canon has become a real bunch of losers.
Nope, no clearer.
What bit did I get wrong again? My argument is that the M was hamstrung by backwards compatability. Systems that were not had a clean sheet to design without compromises.
You seem to disagree that canon made the M backwards compatable (they did) as a selling point (no doubt) and that instead they should have started from scratch (you say they would do that if they wanted anyway, but ahem, they didn't appear to want to, so we can only surmise what they wanted)
So I'll ask again, because at the moment you are making as much logical sense as a chocolate teapot... how am I wrong?
Oh and you are back to video. Yawn.
Did you actually try a chocolate teapot? I wonder what that might taste like. I am not much of a tea drinker, more somewhat of a Swiss chocolate eater, so please forgive me for asking.